House Democrats and ethics reform

When one is "converted," people look for changes in behavior that testify to
a transformation of heart and mind.

The new House Democratic majority has announced its "conversion" on matters
of institutional and individual ethics. Now comes the watching and waiting
to measure the depth of their sincerity. Initial signs leave room for
cautious optimism, or pessimism, depending on one's faith, in people who
have created the problem to provide the solution. Liken it to how much trust
one might place in an embezzler who is put in charge of bank security, or a
serial liar who is asked to devise an honor code.

House Democrats touted their ethics reform package, which, among other
things, requires lawmakers to attach their names to the "earmarks," also
known as "pork," they slip into spending and tax measures. In addition,
members would be required to reveal if they have any personal interest in
the measure.

Suspicion as to whether Democrats, who have long engaged in bipartisan pork
barrel spending with Republicans, are serious about going on the wasteful
spending wagon were quickly raised when Charles Rangel (D-NY), the new
chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said, "You have to assume
that everything we have done is subject to a revisit. These things are not
locked in cement."

The earmark legislation is also tied to the Democrats' proposed "pay as you
go" rule that would keep the House from adding to the deficit with new tax
cuts or entitlement spending without offsetting them with spending cuts or
tax increases. Republicans see that as stealth tax hikes.

The New York Times reported that the earmark measure "could prevent the kind
of corruption that led to several big scandals in recent years, including
former Representative Randy Cunningham's sale of earmarks to government
contractors for cash, gifts and campaign contributions." Not exactly.

According to Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW), which has published a
"Guide to Earmark Reform," "Projects such as digitization of Department of
Defense manuals, which helped land former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham in
jail, would not require sponsor identification because the funds were
directed to DOD, not a specific company. In that situation, the company that
eventually received funding for the project had bribed Cunningham."

This is not the only potential loophole in the ethics rules change. "The
ultimate goal of earmark reform," says CAGW, "should be the elimination of
all pork-barrel projects from the federal budget." That is not likely to
happen, so CAGW proposes the ultimate in transparency and accountability in
order to reduce the number and overall cost of such projects.

The new House rule defines a congressional earmark as a "provision or report
language included primarily at the request of a Member, Delegate, Resident
Commissioner, or Senator providing, authorizing or recommending a specific
amount of discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other
spending authority for a contract, loan guarantee, grant, loan authority or
other expenditure with or to an entity, or targeted to a specific State,
locality or Congressional district, other than through a statutory or
administrative formula driven or competitive award process."

Clear now?

CAGW says the House definition of an earmark falls short in two ways. In
addition to the one mentioned above regarding the Pentagon and Randy
Cunningham, "It omits projects earmarked for more than one state and those
designated for federal agencies. For example, the fiscal 2006 Agriculture
Appropriations Bill includes $6,435,000 for wood utilization research in
Alaska, Idaho, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Carolina,
Oregon, Tennessee, Washington and West Virginia. The House rules would not
require the identification of a sponsor of this earmark."

Republicans will have little credibility advocating that these or tougher
rules be placed in cement. They have been at the spending trough as much as
Democrats. Neither will President Bush have much influence calling, as he
has, for spending reforms, since he has refused to veto a single spending
measure.

The Senate this week considers revising its ethics rules. Don't look for the
"king of pork," Robert Byrd (D-WV.) to take the anti-pork pledge. That would
be like asking Britney Spears to "convert" to responsible behavior. Any real
reform will be up to "we the people." A good beginning can be found in the
CAGW guide.